It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer
corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a
fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force
who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
"Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant FOR ANY OFFENSE MADE PUNISHABLE BY THIS CHAPTER."
(c) Before a vote is taken on the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them—
(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;
(2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;
(3) that, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and
(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the United States.
Originally posted by conspiraciesabound
Where are the parents of the kids dying in Iraq? How can they not be outraged by this? Don't they understand:
The soldiers that their children are fighting against are recognized by the US government has having MORE RIGHTS than them or their children! This is not hyperbole, this is an absolute fact!
Doesn't anyone care about anything?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by conspiraciesabound
Where are the parents of the kids dying in Iraq? How can they not be outraged by this? Don't they understand:
The soldiers that their children are fighting against are recognized by the US government has having MORE RIGHTS than them or their children! This is not hyperbole, this is an absolute fact!
Doesn't anyone care about anything?
the parents are the ones that are shooting at the american soldiers
you know, the people we're calling terrorists
also, go to the al-jeezera webpage in english, search for iraqi casualties...
just brace yourself for some disturbing pictures
Any **ALIEN** unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
The definition of Alien described in the bill is one who isn't a citizen of the U.S.
Originally posted by Zebanar
While I do believe many of these new bills are definitely leading us on a path to a tyrannical state..
Realize this bill also includes:
948c: Persons subject to Military commissions:
Any **ALIEN** unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
The definition of Alien described in the bill is one who isn't a citizen of the U.S.
Although, someone recently posted something about Unlawful combatant status being widened to include possible U.S. Citizens, even if this definition is widened, it still wouldn't apply to this bill in the sense your post suggests it would.
Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition. "Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."
For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place?
This is another telltale facet that proves the bill applies to U.S. citizens and includes them under the "enemy combatant" designation. We previously cited the comments of Yale law Professor Bruce Ackerman, who wrote in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
Originally posted by Zebanar
Interesting interpetation, it seems very vague when put in those terms however, Any person subject to this chapter
and those are determined above to be **Alien** unlawful combatants. Its very well possible that its written this convoluted on purpose.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still very VERY skeptical of this piece of legislation. I'm also very much against propaganda and bias as much as I can be. I come here to sift through tons of stuff trying to find true nuggets of truth.
The funny part is, even if most or the worst of what we think is happening, and say, we were a senator or congressman, we probably still wouldn't have a real clue as to what was going on. Hell, some of us could have been FEMA investigators and still not have a clue.
The majority of us are just too far away from the actual events to truly determine anything, especially if certain powerful organizations are pulling alot of media strings.